Right, but what I was asking was - when Origen in the Commentary on Matthew says "and Mark say ... and Luke says" - and he lays out what Mark and Luke and sometimes John says in almost every entry - is he using Ammonius's book to do this?

Right but we're not here with the overriding purpose of attacking Christianity or calling it fake. We're here to figure out how it developed, how its story came to be. So it's not enough to say 'it's all fake.' There is a difference between Eusebius using a fake source and Eusebius faking a source. ...

I still think the question Ben hasn't answered directly is pertinent (and underscored by all my Michael Jackson and Catholic priesthood analogies). What is a reasonable starting point for doubt with respect to Eusebius? Do we say: (a) he is a historian and we have to give him the benefit of the doub...

Representation/misrepresentation = Impersonation = This is all very useful in a technical procedural sort of way. But this isn't the issue. Eusebius had to prove that Origen wasn't against the ecclesiastical order. This is ground zero. He had to make Origen appear compatible with Imperial sanctione...

I am not sure whoever invented the four gospels meant for one person to hold the key to everything. I think the expectation was that the canon would act to limit points of view. Not to provide one man near messianic status. Origen's rise challenged the status quo. The canon and the praescriptions we...

And Socrates was what... I think it's different with Origen. Let's contextualize Origen. 1. the fourfold gospel is first mentioned by Irenaeus in Book Three c. 185 - 190 2. Origen is the first theologian of the four gospels. He was the first to set forth a methodology, an understanding of the NEW s...

But is the characteristic Eusebius exhibits in writing the Apology on behalf of Pamphilus (and stealing his name) in order to make Origen seem less like a heretic properly characterized as 'bias' or something more nefarious? I don't think this is like the other examples you give because Origen was a...

Everyone knows that in both the Commentary on John and on Matthew there are numerous places where Origen makes reference to what parallel readings are found in other gospels. Do we really need proof that Origen used or did use Ammonius's gospel canons like Eusebius? Or is it fair to assume he knew t...